Element contents
Semantics and the Ontology of Number
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 April 2021
Summary
What are the meanings of number expressions, and what can they tell us about questions of central importance to the philosophy of mathematics, specifically 'Do numbers exist?' This Element attempts to shed light on this question by outlining a recent debate between substantivalists and adjectivalists regarding the semantic function of number words in numerical statements. After highlighting their motivations and challenges, I develop a comprehensive polymorphic semantics for number expressions. I argue that accounting for the numerous meanings and how they are related leads to a strengthened argument for realism, one which renders familiar forms of nominalism highly implausible.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108602259Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 20 May 2021
Bibliography
Alexiadou, A. (2017). Deriving color adjectival nominalizations. Lingustica: Revista de Estudos Lingusticos da Universidade do Porto, 8:143–158.Google Scholar
Balcerak-Jackson, B. (2013). Defusing easy arguments for numbers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36:447–461.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (1998). Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4:679–717.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1:413–458.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review, 74(1):47–73.Google Scholar
Breheny, R. (2008). A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 25(2):93–139.Google Scholar
Brogaard, B. (2007). Number words and ontological commitment. Philosophical Quarterly, 57:1–20.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. P. and Rosen, G. (1997). A Subject With No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bylinina, L., Ivlieva, N., Podobryeav, A., and Sudo, Y. (2014). A non-superlative semantics for ordinals and the semantics of comparison classes. Ms.Google Scholar
Carrara, M., Arapinis, A., and Moltmann, F. (2016). Unity & Plurality: Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6:339–405.Google Scholar
Chihara, C. S. (1990). Constructibility and Mathematical Existence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Felka, K. (2014). Number words and reference to numbers. Philosophical Studies, 168:261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frana, I. (2006). The de re analysis of concealed questions: A unified approach to definite and indefinite concealed questions. In Gibson, M. and Howell, J., eds., Proceedings of SALT 16.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2006). Take ‘five’. In Vogleer, S. and Tasmowski, L., eds., Non-Definiteness and Plurality, pages 311–329. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, B. (1977). A semantic account of relative clauses with embedded question interpretations. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hale, B. (1994). Singular terms. In The Philosophy of Michael Dummett, pages 17–44. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, B. (2016). Definitions of numbers and their applications. In Ebert, P. and Rossberg, M., eds., Abstractionism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, B. and Wright, C. (2001). The Reason’s Proper Study: Towards a Neo-Fregean Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1979). Concealed questions. In Bauerle, R., Egli, U., and von Stechow, A., eds., Semantics from Different Points of View, pages 51–60. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without numbers: Towards a modal-structural interpretation. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hodes, H. (1984). Logicism and the ontological commitments of arithmetic. The Journal of Philosophy, 81:123–149.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2005). Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. The Philosophical Review, 114:179–225.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2007). Innocent statements and their metaphysically loaded counterparts. Philosopher’s Imprint, 7:1–33.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2014). Extraction, displacement, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(3):263–267.Google Scholar
Hofweber, T. (2016). Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2012). Adjectives. In Russell, G. and Graff-Fara, D., eds., Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2015). A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(10):1–44.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81:345–381.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2010). Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese, 174(1):79–98.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In von Bentham, J., Bartsch, R., and von Emde Boas, P., eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions. Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1990). Boolean and non-boolean and. In Kalman, L. and Polos, L., eds., Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language. Akademmiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., ter Meulen, A., and Link, J. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F., eds., The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pages 1–124.Google Scholar
Landman, F. (2003). Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival thoery of indefinites. In Coene, M. and D’hulst, Y., eds., NP to DP. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leng, M. (2005). Revolutionary fictionalism: A call to arms. Philosophia Mathematica, 13(3):277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A., eds., Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Langauge, pages 303–323.Google Scholar
Linnebo, Ø. (2009). The individuation of the natural numbers. In Bueno, O. and Linnebo, Ø., eds., New Waves in Philosophy of Mathematics, pages 220–238. Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
McNally, L. and de Swart, H. (2011). Inflection and derivation: How adjectives and nouns refer to abstract objects. In Proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 425–434.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, L. (2005). Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication, and Equation. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, L. (2011). Copular clauses. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P., eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2008). Intensional verbs and their intentional objects. Natural Language Semantics, 16(3):239–270.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013a). Abstract objects and the semantics of natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2013b). Reference to numbers in natural language. Philosophical Studies, 162:499–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2016). Plural reference and reference to a plurality. In Carrara, A. A. and Moltmann, F., eds., Unity & Plurality: Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2017). Number words as number names. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40:331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, L. (2006). On the Interpretation of Concealed Questions. PhD thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Nutting, E. S. (2018). Ontological realism and sentential form. Synthese, 195(11):5021–5036.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1986a). Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Bergman, S., Choe, J., and McDonough, J., eds., Proceedings of the Northwestern Linguistics Society 16. GLSA.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1986b). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Groenendijk, J., de Jongh, D., and Stokhof, M., eds., Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, B. and Borschev, V. (2012). Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics, 29:445–486.Google Scholar
Partee, B. and Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A., eds., Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 361–383. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1992). semantic type. Computational linguistics and formal semantics, page 97.Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2008). Degree Modification in Natural Language. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Romero, M. (2005). Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6):687–737.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. Baltic International Handbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2013). A Fregean semantics for number words. In Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 179–186. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2016). Counting and measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11(1):8.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2003). Clausal equations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21:157–214.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 34:207–228.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S., Snyder, E., and Samuels, R. (ms.). What’s wrong with Hofweber’s nominalism.Google Scholar
Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 89:607–624.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. (2017). Numbers and cardinalities: What’s really wrong with the easy argument? Linguistics and Philosophy, 40:373–400.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. (2020). Counting, measuring, and the fractional cardinalities puzzle. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. and Barlew, J. (2016). The universal measurer. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. and Barlew, J. (2019). How to count oranges. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Snyder, E., Samuels, R., and Shapiro, S. (2018a). Neologicism, Frege’s Constraint, and the Frege-Heck condition. Noûs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, E., Samuels, R., and Shaprio, S. (2019). Hale’s argument from transitive counting. Synthese, pages 1–29.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. and Shapiro, S. (2016). Frege on the reals. In Ebert, P. and Rossberg, M., eds., Essays on Frege’s Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, E., Shapiro, S., and Samuels, R. (2018b). Cardinals, ordinals, and the prospects for a Fregean foundations. In Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements: RIP Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1983). Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects. Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (2000). Neo-Fregean foundations for real analysis: Some reflections on Frege’s constraint. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41:317–334.Google Scholar
Wright, C. et al. (1999). Is Hume’s principle analytic? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40(1):6–30.Google Scholar
- 20
- Cited by